P PALANISWAMY S/O PERIASWAMY GOUNDER Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY; SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the first Respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the application of the Petitioner, dated 1.10.2008, as per the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated23.6.2010, made in W.A. Nos. 1104, 777, 1013, 1110 and 1111of 2009, within a specified period.

(2.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents had submitted that the first Respondent could not pass appropriate orders, as per the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 23.6.2010, made in W.A. Nos. 1104, 777, 1013, 1110 and 1111 of 2009, due to the pendency of a writ petition in W.P. No. 7412 of 2010,wherein, an order of status quo had been granted in respect of G.O. Ms. No. 277, Home (Transport-VI) Department, dated22.3.2001. Subsequently, the writ petition had been dismissed, by an order passed by this Court, on 22.1.2011. However, the Chief Electoral Officer, Public (Election)Department, Chennai, had informed that granting of auto permits would be against the model code of conduct and therefore, no permits should be issued, after coming into 3 force of the model code of conduct, from 1.3.2011.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had submitted that appropriate orders may be passed on the application of the Petitioner, dated 1.10.2008, after the results of the general elections are announced.